Docho Lekov

The archive of Lyuben Karavelov contains interesting data on the ideology and cyclopedic activity of the great figure of our national revival. Karavelov's extremely illegible handwriting made it difficult to use many valuable documents, written for the most part in Russian, and left unknown interesting conjectures, thoughts, impressions and works of the writer, public figure, and the magazine sta. Reading all the manuscripts, which will be published in the first volume prepared from Karavelov's archival heritage, completes the picture of the overall personality of their creator, while at the same time clarifying some controversial issues surrounding his ideological and creative path. Karavelov's "Memoirs", stored in the Arch. Department at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, contain a lot of information about one of the least studied periods of their author's life - his activities in Serbia. We are reprinting the manuscript authentically, allowing ourselves only to update the spelling, which is necessary for publications of this nature. Written approximately 10 years after Karavelov left Russia, when the new linguistic environment and the daily use of two more languages ​​(Serbian and Romanian) had an impact on the frequent vocabulary and grammatical construction of the previously mastered Russian language, in the mentioned document, as well as in a significant part of the others, we come across incorrectly used case forms, Bulgarianisms and unsuccessful syntactic structure of the sentence. Having become accustomed to the language of the great Slavic country, however, Karavelov used it from the beginning to the end of his life. Since the handwriting of the editor of "Svoboda" is extremely illegible, the ink on some pages has faded from the effects of atmospheric conditions and the edges of several sheets are frayed or torn, some words remained unreadable. We mark them with an ellipsis enclosed in brackets (...) Words whose interpretation we are not completely sure of are placed in square brackets, and those of them that Karavelov used in abbreviation are given in two ways - when only the initial letters of the word are marked, we put the omitted part of it in brackets, and when the abbreviation affects the middle part, we mark the entire word under the line. In many places in the manuscripts we encounter Karavelov's initials LK. He used this as a reminder for barely hinted thoughts, facts and events that he intended to develop in his further work, or in those cases when he knew some names and data.

Dimitar and Konstantin Miladinov, as teachers, writers and public figures, were the first advocates for preserving and strengthening the national self-consciousness of the population of Macedonia, threatened during the Turkish rule by the assimilationist offensive of the Phanariotes. The Hellenizing policy of the Greek Patriarchate caused D. Miladinov, as early as 1852, when he himself was leading school education in Greek, to turn anxiously to Alexander the Exarch: "The six-eighths of Macedonia, which are populated by monolingual Bulgarians - he wrote to him - are all learning the Hellenic script and are called Hellenes by the Hellenes, except for the northern Slovenes, who are advancing in the Slovenian (language)", 1 Therefore, after the Crimean War, when the movement for the political and spiritual liberation of the Bulgarian people entered its decisive stage, Miladinov became one of the pioneers of the national awakening of Macedonia. As a teacher, with the active assistance of his younger brother Konstantin, Rayko Zhinzifov and other of his students and followers, he was the first to lead the struggle for the introduction of the Bulgarian language, which had been overthrown by the Phanariotes, into the school and the church, and with his exceptional activity against the denationalizing advances of the patriarchate, he established himself as a universally recognized figure in the Bulgarian revival. That is why, when in the January days of 1862 the news of the martyrdom of the two brothers was brought from Constantinople, it disturbed their compatriots from all corners of Bulgaria, and a number of Slavic periodicals, appreciating the value of their great work, widely popularized their names. Having received a solid education for their time in Greek educational institutions, which Konstantin subsequently enriched at the Faculty of Philology in Moscow, the Miladinovs perceptively understood the role of culture for the national revival of every nation. The rich literature of Greece, which excitingly reflected the life of ancient Hellas and the flowering of its civilization, not only does not disturb their national consciousness, but makes them look at the preserved material and spiritual values ​​of their people in order to document through them their historical past, the stability of their way of life and character. And if the Bulgarian literature of that time, whose development was hindered by the conditions of political and spiritual oppression, could only partially respond to this patriotic need, in the folk poetic work of Dimitar Konstantin Miladinovi discovered both the past, the present, and the future of his people. The collection of samples of folklore and their publication in the collection “Bulgarian Folk Songs” strengthened, enriched, and exalted their patriotic and democratic work.

The periodicals from the era of our national revival often surprise us with the insight and sober ideological and aesthetic sense of the first Bulgarian Literary Critics. In them, next to the angry correspondence against the centuries-old slave system or the naive poetic work of some teacher, we often come across reviews of original and translated works of art or articles of a theoretical nature. Sometimes they are laconic and informative, sometimes detailed and categorical. Their authors are not always original. In most cases, they even popularize ideas and beliefs created and adopted in other countries dozens of years earlier. But even when they paraphrase or borrow textually, our literary pioneers do so not in order to be proclaimed by the ignorance of their compatriots as talented thinkers or as founders of movements and schools, but because of the utilitarian spirit of the time and for tactical considerations before the official political authorities. However, both as popularizers and as original The Bulgarian Renaissance writers and literary figures always lived with the problems and creative pathos of our literature. The influence of Russian realistic thought on their literary-critical views is undeniable. However, we do not set ourselves the task of tracing how and to what extent it was realized, we will limit ourselves to pointing out that almost all Bulgarian Renaissance writers were able to soberly use what they had learned both as writers and as literary critics. This is evident above all from their articles and notes, in which some of the problems of realism as a creative method in fiction are raised and examined. The literary-critical views of Karavelov, Botev, Nesho Bonchev, which reflect a relatively more mature stage in Bulgarian criticism, will not concern us in this case. By referring only at certain moments to some articles by our established literary critics, we will try to trace the concepts of Other Renaissance writers on our literary development, in order to see that the struggle for realism in Bulgarian literature until the Liberation was a struggle not only of individual, albeit great, writers, but a collective work of an entire literary generation. And since realism finds its fullest expression in literary prose, we will limit ourselves to indicating how literary criticism then greeted the first attempts in the field of "Bulgarianized" and original fiction, how some of our writers understood their tasks, what tasks they assigned to narrative creativity.

Much has been written about the influence of Russian literary and social thought on the development of Bulgarian culture and the revolutionary-democratic formation of prominent figures during the Revival era. Sometimes, however, this influence is traced too generally and mechanically, without taking into account a number of facts that are of direct importance for the creative clarification of certain aspects of the activity and ideology of a given writer or public figure. Of course, in this case, a comprehensive study of the Russian periodical press, of fiction and other literature in the 19th century is necessary, above all, a task that is extremely difficult and almost impossible to accomplish without the collective efforts of writers, historians, folklorists, and philosophers. That is why the statements and notes of some of our Revival figures in their works or in their surviving archives about specific manifestations of Russian cultural and political life, about their interests in certain literary and scientific works, are all the more valuable. The catalogues of their libraries, which illustrate their preferences for famous authors, deserve no less attention. Therefore, the detailed notes from the archive of Lyuben Karavelov, as well as the catalogue of his unpreserved library, printed in the Izvestia of the National Library "Vasil Kolarov", served as reliable guides for more targeted research in the libraries and manuscript collections of Moscow and Leningrad. These bibliographical instructions did not narrow my task - the study of Russian literature and culture in the 60s-70s of the 19th century - to revolve exclusively around Karavelov. Considering the encyclopedic interests of the editor of "Svoboda" and "Nezavisimost", it is very easy to understand that getting acquainted with specific aspects of the ideological and cultural environment in which he lived and worked for ten years allows the researcher to feel the aspirations and excitements of the rest of our Renaissance writers who received their education in Russia. It is enough to note that 502 of the 821 books and magazines contained in Karavelov's library are Russian, a small part of which is preserved in the Vasil Kolarov National Library. Karavelov's library contained many of the works of the revolutionary democrats Belinsky, Herzen, Nekrasov, a number of works by Pushkin, Gogol, Lermontov, valuable natural science and other studies. All of them, together with the hundreds of other titles of individual works or articles that Karavelov bibliographed, give a complete idea of ​​the richness and diversity of Russian life at that time.

Tradition has forever linked the names of two prominent representatives of the Bulgarian revival - Paisius and Sophrony of Vrachanski. And not by chance. The Kotla priest Stoyko Vladislavov was the first to transcribe "History of Slavonic Bulgaria", the first to understand and implement as a writer and public figure the national and universal ideas of the Hilendar monk. In 1962, the 200th anniversary of the writing of "History of Slavonic Bulgaria" was celebrated - articles and studies were published in the periodical press and scientific publications that shed light on important moments in the work of the immortal revivalist. Just a few months later, a monograph on the life and creative path of Sophrony of Vrachanski appeared. Its author, the famous specialist in Old Bulgarian literature V. Sl. Kiselkov, has shown interest in Sophrony as a scientist and citizen, because, as he notes in the introduction to his work, he was born and raised "in the birthplace of Sophrony" (p. 4). Therefore, the tracing and interpretation of the facts is often warmed by a warm feeling for his native land, by reverence for its historical past, by a captivating enthusiasm for the work of notable Kotel residents. V. Sl. Kiselkov's aspiration to outline the era and activities of Sophrony as completely as possible, to challenge established concepts and propose new ones, has determined both the composition of the monograph and the volume of its individual parts. It is made up of four mutually complementary chapters: 1. Kotel; 2. From the cradle to the grave; 3. Writer's image; 4. Literary work.

The centenary of the publication of the collection "Bulgarian Folk Songs" and the death of its compilers Dimitar and Konstantin Miladinov gave a favorable occasion to writers, historians, folklorists and linguists to shed light on new aspects of the life and literary work of the Two Brothers, to make a comprehensive assessment of their role, place and significance in the Bulgarian Revival. Nikola Tabakov's book "The Miladinov Brothers. A Biographical Sketch" appeared one year after the celebrated anniversary. The interest shown in it, however, showed that the attention of the Bulgarian reader to the two Revivalists was not accidental and jubilee. The author of the book, as is evident from the title, set himself a modest task - to popularize the life path of the Miladinovs. However, considering that in figures like Dimitar and Konstantin the biographical in most cases intertwines with the creative individual, Nikola Tabakov necessarily had to touch upon literary, folklore and other issues. Miladinovtsi have attracted Nikola Tabakov's attention for a long time. He is one of the publishers of their works, the author of articles about their magnificent work. Some controversial issues surrounding their life and activities have occupied him for a long time. And he digs through archives and old periodicals, compares data and opinions. In this way, Long-term persistence outlines in his consciousness two images from the past, which he "shares" with the reader as he "perceives" and feels them.

The problem of literary ties, of the general cultural contact between the Slavic peoples at the V International Congress of Slavists was devoted to a number of reports and scientific communications. These influences were considered on a pan-Slavic or national level, with a view to a specific writer or work. Regularities were indicated, literary phenomena and features were studied. A huge amount of factual material was presented, which will make it possible to clarify controversial and indisputable concepts. Some of the reports, regardless of their concreteness in posing and developing individual questions, point to analogies and a more creative look into the essence and specificity of the literary process.

In the lively discussions about Karavelov's worldview and work in recent years, the Soviet philosopher Lev Valentinovich Vorobyov also intervened. His articles appeared in Bulgarian scientific publications, magazines and newspapers, which suggested resourceful and original thought, an open-minded attitude towards facts, controversial concepts and their authors. In 1962, his book "Philosophical and Sociological Views of Lyubena Karavelova" was published. The following year, the monograph "Lyuben Karavelov. Worldview and Work" appeared. The two studies, with certain compositional changes, represent the doctoral dissertation of L. V. Vorobyov, which he defended in June 1962 in Kiev. While in the first book the researcher is exclusively interested in the ideology of the Bulgarian revolutionary, the second study gives a comprehensive idea of ​​Karavelov - the public figure, the writer, the encyclopedist. Without belittling the value of "Philosophical and Sociological Views of Lyubena Karavelova", we will express our opinion on the second book of the Soviet scientist. In it, the author thoroughly presents all his observations and conclusions, which are also the subject of his first study.

The literature of every nation is connected in a unique way with reality, with its ideals. At different times, depending on the nature of social ideas and the state of art, this connection is realized in a specific way in the individual literary genres, with each individual creator. However, the bold social thought always seeks means to express itself aesthetically, to assert itself through artistic images. Bulgarian literature during the Revival is to a significant extent utilitarian. It was supposed to "react" to all current problems in a more specific form, to seek the most direct path to the reader. Its very first manifestations, regardless of its aesthetic inferiority, were ideologically purposeful - to find the positive hero of modernity and recreate him as an artistic reality, as a type. Of course, this was a long and difficult process, which was influenced by various factors - the definiteness of public ideas, the degree of artistic knowledge of the writer and reader, the literary tradition, the talent and worldview of the individual person, etc. That is why the literary process does not proceed evenly - there are periods of stagnation and flourishing, of "orientation" and innovation. All this cannot be ignored when the question of the positive hero of Renaissance literature in general and fiction in particular is raised. In lyric poetry, for example, he appears and is established significantly earlier than in the short story and the novella. But between the lyrical and the fictional positive hero there is a certain dependence, which is determined by the regularities in the development of the New Bulgarian literature. Common moments in the treatment of the positive hero are also observed in the translated and original works of art. In many of the translations made before the Crimean War, he is religious and humble, associated with the passing patriarchal life. His portrait characterization is schematic, the spiritual world - one-sided. But he also undergoes development, consistent with the worldview and artistic practice of translators and "Bulgarizers".

Bulgarian literary criticism during the Revival attracted the least researchers of our classical heritage. Indeed, there are special studies on Karavelov and Botev, on Drumev and Nesho Bonchev. On various occasions, some literary historians and theorists have touched upon the issues of Revival aesthetic thought. However, the need for a comprehensive study has long been felt, which would enrich the not-so-complete and accurate ideas about literary criticism during the Revival, point out new names and facts, and seek the principles that determine the attitude of the Revival writer to literary phenomena. Such a work, of course, requires not only persistent and continuous work - a study of the periodical press, archival funds, and individual editions. Basically, one must also know Russian and Western European aesthetic thought of this period in order to be able to trace the nature of the influences, to distinguish the original from ordinary imitation. It is necessary to study both the original and translated literature, to see whether each given assessment meets an objective criterion.

Translated fiction in Bulgaria reflects in its own way the ideological and cultural peculiarities of the time, the taste and preferences of the reader. The content is one thing in the Middle Ages, when the newly adopted Christian religion had to be sanctioned, and its appearance during the era of national revival is another. However, its character changes relatively slowly, just as the worldview of the people also changes slowly... The economic changes in the Turkish Empire at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries lead to changes in the worldview, ideology and culture. Initially, they are imperceptible, manifest themselves unevenly, often developing in their old forms. However, they always become established - sometimes decisively and quickly, in other cases gradually and painfully. The new elements in the consciousness and psychology of the Bulgarian also require new literature - with themes, ideas and imagery, different from the literature of the Middle Ages. Indeed, in Old Bulgarian literature and in the Damascenes there are individual moments with secular content, with a view to the intimate world of man. However, these are only elements that had to be further developed and enriched, to be subordinated to the new concepts of the time. In this regard, a significant role is played not only by writers, but also by translators. Bulgarian writers understand the need for translated literature - be it artistic, pedagogical or social. This applies especially to the first decades of the Revival, when we did not have a significant original contribution in the field of national culture. Therefore, Revival writers perceive translated literature as an integral part of national literature. In this sense, the ideological and artistic principles that face the original creator are no less of a concern for every cultural translator.

The Bulgarian Academy of Sciences occupies a paramount place in the cultural life of our country. Its membership includes the most prominent representatives of Bulgarian science, it has organized scientific institutes in all fields of modern knowledge, its members and associates participate not only in the most important research within the country, but also in scientific life abroad, numerous international congresses, conferences, symposia, etc. To this must be added the enormous publishing activity that the academy carries out; this activity began with its very beginnings - as the Bulgarian Literary Society in Braila, founded in 1869, but the dimensions to which it has reached today represent an exceptional phenomenon in the history of Bulgarian science and culture. We do not always appreciate this fact enough. If we go back to the years when the foundations of the future Bulgarian Academy of Sciences were laid, we cannot fail to note one important circumstance: it is a product of the Bulgarian national revival. Its creation is not the result of a decree issued by a single authority, but of a long process, expressed in numerous reflections and proposals, in various projects and actions. The idea of ​​a Bulgarian Academy of Sciences was born in the great aspiration of our people towards enlightenment and cultural progress: already during the Renaissance era, it should embody the enlightened ideals of the people and also give a strong impetus to their cultural development. In this respect, our country repeats the history of academies in Europe - they arose in the 15th century, in the era of the Italian Renaissance ("Platonic Academy" in Florence, "Accademia Antiquaria" in Rome, etc.).